The mutationathon highlights the importance of reaching standardization in estimates of pedigree-based germline mutation rates

  1. Lucie A Bergeron  Is a corresponding author
  2. Søren Besenbacher
  3. Tychele Turner
  4. Cyril J Versoza
  5. Richard J Wang
  6. Alivia Lee Price
  7. Ellie Armstrong
  8. Meritxell Riera
  9. Jedidiah Carlson
  10. Hwei-yen Chen
  11. Matthew W Hahn
  12. Kelley Harris
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe
  14. Elora H López-Nandam
  15. Priya Moorjani
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer
  17. George P Tiley
  18. Anne D Yoder
  19. Guojie Zhang
  20. Mikkel H Schierup  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  2. Aarhus University, Denmark
  3. Washington University in St. Louis, United States
  4. Arizona State University, United States
  5. Indiana University, United States
  6. Stanford University, United States
  7. University of Washington, United States
  8. California Academy of Sciences, United States
  9. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  10. Duke University, United States

Abstract

In the past decade, several studies have estimated the human per-generation germline mutation rate using large pedigrees. More recently, estimates for various non-human species have been published. However, methodological differences among studies in detecting germline mutations and estimating mutation rates make direct comparisons difficult. Here, we describe the many different steps involved in estimating pedigree-based mutation rates, including sampling, sequencing, mapping, variant calling, filtering, and how to appropriately account for false-positive and false-negative rates. For each step, we review the different methods and parameter choices that have been used in the recent literature. Additionally, we present the results from a 'Mutationathon', a competition organized among five research labs to compare germline mutation rate estimates for a single pedigree of rhesus macaques. We report almost a two-fold variation in the final estimated rate among groups using different post-alignment processing, calling, and filtering criteria and provide details into the sources of variation across studies. Though the difference among estimates is not statistically significant, this discrepancy emphasizes the need for standardized methods in mutation rate estimations and the difficulty in comparing rates from different studies. Finally, this work aims to provide guidelines for computational and statistical benchmarks for future studies interested in identifying germline mutations from pedigrees.

Data availability

The sequences of the pedigree analyzed are available on NCBI under the accession numbers:SRR10426295;SRR10426294;SRR10426275;SRR10426264;SRR10426253;SRR10426291;SRR10426290;SRR10426256;SRR10426255.The PCR experiment and Sanger resequencing produced for this work are deposited on Genbank under the accession number MZ661796 - MZ662076. Supplementary table 4 describe the data.The scripts used by the participants of the Mutationathon are publically available on different github described in the manuscript.Figure 3, 4 and 5 can be reproduced with the data in Figure 3 - source data 1, Figure 4 - source data 1, and Figure 5 - source data 1 .

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lucie A Bergeron

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    For correspondence
    lucie.a.bergeron@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1877-1690
  2. Søren Besenbacher

    Department of Molecular Medicine (MOMA), Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1455-1738
  3. Tychele Turner

    Department of Genetics, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Cyril J Versoza

    Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Richard J Wang

    Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alivia Lee Price

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ellie Armstrong

    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7107-6318
  8. Meritxell Riera

    Bioinformatics Research Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jedidiah Carlson

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Hwei-yen Chen

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Matthew W Hahn

    Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5731-8808
  12. Kelley Harris

    Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0302-2523
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe

    Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7866-3056
  14. Elora H López-Nandam

    California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Priya Moorjani

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1378-2913
  17. George P Tiley

    Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0053-0207
  18. Anne D Yoder

    Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Guojie Zhang

    Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Mikkel H Schierup

    Bioinformatics Research Center, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    For correspondence
    mheide@birc.au.dk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Carlsbergfondet (CF16-0663)

  • Guojie Zhang

US national science foundation CAREER (DEB-2045343)

  • Susanne P Pfeifer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Bergeron et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,336
    views
  • 378
    downloads
  • 43
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Lucie A Bergeron
  2. Søren Besenbacher
  3. Tychele Turner
  4. Cyril J Versoza
  5. Richard J Wang
  6. Alivia Lee Price
  7. Ellie Armstrong
  8. Meritxell Riera
  9. Jedidiah Carlson
  10. Hwei-yen Chen
  11. Matthew W Hahn
  12. Kelley Harris
  13. April Snøfrid Kleppe
  14. Elora H López-Nandam
  15. Priya Moorjani
  16. Susanne P Pfeifer
  17. George P Tiley
  18. Anne D Yoder
  19. Guojie Zhang
  20. Mikkel H Schierup
(2022)
The mutationathon highlights the importance of reaching standardization in estimates of pedigree-based germline mutation rates
eLife 11:e73577.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73577

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73577

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Rebecca D Tarvin, Jeffrey L Coleman ... Richard W Fitch
    Research Article

    Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here, we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Thus, our data suggest that diet is insufficient to explain the defended phenotype. Our data support the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration — passive accumulation — that differs from sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms. In light of ideas from pharmacokinetics, we incorporate new and old data from poison frogs into an evolutionary model that could help explain the origins of acquired chemical defenses in animals and provide insight into the molecular processes that govern the fate of ingested toxins.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Timothy Fuqua, Yiqiao Sun, Andreas Wagner
    Research Article

    Gene regulation is essential for life and controlled by regulatory DNA. Mutations can modify the activity of regulatory DNA, and also create new regulatory DNA, a process called regulatory emergence. Non-regulatory and regulatory DNA contain motifs to which transcription factors may bind. In prokaryotes, gene expression requires a stretch of DNA called a promoter, which contains two motifs called –10 and –35 boxes. However, these motifs may occur in both promoters and non-promoter DNA in multiple copies. They have been implicated in some studies to improve promoter activity, and in others to repress it. Here, we ask whether the presence of such motifs in different genetic sequences influences promoter evolution and emergence. To understand whether and how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution, we start from 50 ‘promoter islands’, DNA sequences enriched with –10 and –35 boxes. We mutagenize these starting ‘parent’ sequences, and measure gene expression driven by 240,000 of the resulting mutants. We find that the probability that mutations create an active promoter varies more than 200-fold, and is not correlated with the number of promoter motifs. For parent sequences without promoter activity, mutations created over 1500 new –10 and –35 boxes at unique positions in the library, but only ~0.3% of these resulted in de-novo promoter activity. Only ~13% of all –10 and –35 boxes contribute to de-novo promoter activity. For parent sequences with promoter activity, mutations created new –10 and –35 boxes in 11 specific positions that partially overlap with preexisting ones to modulate expression. We also find that –10 and –35 boxes do not repress promoter activity. Overall, our work demonstrates how promoter motifs influence promoter emergence and evolution. It has implications for predicting and understanding regulatory evolution, de novo genes, and phenotypic evolution.